Template talk:Exodus Armor
20:08, 8 July 2008 (UTC)Ah, crap, accidentally hit the save page button. Blah. And, it didn't work out quite well since the template doesn't seem to link properly. Anyways, heading home, I'll experiment with this again tomorrow. (At work is where I can get Internet access.) Please don't delete this page just yet. :P Any advice?--Balsa 10:19, 7 July 2008 (UTC) *I think armor could be covered by one general template for equipment. That hasn't been made yet, although it's on a to-do list. I'd suggest converting this into the equipment template. --Halomek 19:49, 7 July 2008 (UTC) **YES! SUCCESS! Okay, a couple issues. I accidentally named the template Template:Armor instead of Template:Exodus Armor. Is there a way to change the name of the template? Secondly, I'll work on the colors now, so it doesn't match what we've already got. As for the equipment infobox, I think armor (powered, battle, personal) is different enough from normal equipment (hydrospanners, med-packs) that they warrant a separate infobox. --Balsa 00:41, 8 July 2008 (UTC) **Okay, got the colors changed. I suppose the final thing is to get some feedback about the labeling. Is Template:Armor fine? Or would it be better for Template:Exodus Armor? --Balsa 02:23, 8 July 2008 (UTC) ***I like the look of it. And Temple: Armor works for me personally. For the most part I don't think there will be too many unique armors put up on the wiki, most will probably be standard military outfit equipment.--Mir 04:59, 8 July 2008 (UTC) ****True. I just noticed that we have quite a large assortment of battle/powered armors and the like that could really use a template. If there's no real objections to this infobox, I'd like to use it tomorrow (Or today) to create an article for the Specter armor. --Balsa 05:35, 8 July 2008 (UTC) *****I'm torn on the issue. On one hand, armor can, indeed, fit in a universal "equipment" template. But on the other hand, we have enough articles for a separate template (armor) that it might be deemed necessary. I like the idea of an armor template by itself, but I don't much like the fact that you decided to go ahead and do it anyway without a popular opinion swaying either way, when there is clear opposition to the idea. Also don't like the idea of having a template for every individual thing. (Shall we make "blasters" and "melee weapons" templates instead of, simply, a "weapons" template? Or separate our ships template into the various classes that are under debate? Or split off our "Independent Character" template into different templates like "Civilian", "Mercenary", "Pirate"?) The point of template is to make thing easier, not more confusing. This needs a trial run before you start implementing it into all our articles, Balsa. Please refrain from placing this template anywhere else until an ultimatum has been made. --Cadden Blackthorne 17:21, 8 July 2008 (UTC) ******I think both of you (Cadden and Halomek) are wrong on this issue, actually. If we include Armor under an Equipment template, shouldn't we also include Weapons in said Equipment template as well? A weapon is, after all, still a piece of equipment. --Jagtai 17:28, 8 July 2008 (UTC) *******And I think you are wrong. (Aka: Please don't say that again. It's rude, and conceited.) When I think of a weapon, I see it as separate from equipment because of its dinstinctive use. To me, equipment would be tools, other related technology, jet packs, armor, etc. Things that aren't designed to be offensive weapons, and are meant to remain with you at all times of necessity. In a very loose sense, yes, equipment would include weaponry in that category. But I don't consider weaponry equipment, because not only is the term "weapon" very vague, a weapon inupon itself is easily expendible. Its only necessity is in times of conflict. Whereas even armor has practical uses outside the field of battle. --Cadden Blackthorne 17:54, 8 July 2008 (UTC) ********Geez, calm down. Anyway, I think your reasoning is faulty, Cadden. Even weapons are tools, and tools and equipment are basically two words for the same thing. And what, by the way, would you use armour for outside of combat? --Jagtai 19:41, 8 July 2008 (UTC) *********Lol, I am calm, Jag. I was merely pointing out how rude and conceited calling someone wrong in a debate based on opinion is. Weapons can be used as tools, yes, but that doesn't make them tools, persay. You're bending my words. Shame shame. Let's put it into perspective... do you think that the chainsaw was build specifically for psychopaths? Or the sword for any other purpose than war? And what, outside of combat, can armor be used for? How about hazardous conditions? For example, construction. I know I'd rather be wearing full body armor in case a part of that grounded ship causes shrapnel to go flying. Canon sported the armored spacesuit, and the article shows no indication of them being for combat scenarios. Enviro-suits are also listed as armor, though clearly they were not intended for war usage. Satisfied? (I put this one before Mir's 'cause I was working on it before he posted his comment. Gotta love their lack of edit protection 'round here. :P) --Cadden Blackthorne 20:21, 8 July 2008 (UTC) *********Well, while my internet is working for a few moments, let me just say that I with Balsa on this one. I'm not with Jag, because......it's Jag, why do you have to ask why....but I'm with Balsa. Seriously though, there's nothing wrong with an armor template. And don't respond with "There's nothing right either":)--Mir **********Well, after looking at the infobox templates that Wookieepedia uses (here), and seeing that they also use an armor template, I'll go ahead and support this. We still need an equipment infobox though... (or "device template" as Wook calls it). --Halomek 20:24, 8 July 2008 (UTC) ***********Works for me. Like I said before, I'm really indifferential about it. (Any who claim otherwise have lost the subject matter of my previous arguments. :P) We'll put the template up for analysis and get it finalized before we port it out across the VE. --Cadden Blackthorne 20:29, 8 July 2008 (UTC) ***********A weapon is a tool, no matter what you use it for. The very fact that you use it for cutting things makes it a tool. You can't divide the two. And I DID NOT say you were wrong, I said that in my opinion you were wrong. But I'll choose my words more carefully next time. Anyway, the issue seems to be settled now, anyway. --Jagtai 20:32, 8 July 2008 (UTC) ************Like using a gun to turn off the lights (Simpson's reference). :P --Halomek 20:41, 8 July 2008 (UTC) *************Honestly, I would not have gotten that if you did not reference the Simpsons.... :P --Cadden Blackthorne 21:04, 8 July 2008 (UTC) *Starting a new asterisk/tab because I don't feel like counting up how many stars I have to put. Anyways, Cadden, as far as I know, the template's only been used in my Specter Armor article and Jag's Mark IV (?) article, but I wasn't the one who included it in his article. (That was probably Jag himself.) As such, it wouldn't be difficult to remove the template, since it'd only affect a couple of articles. I also wasn't planning on putting this template into other articles. Also, I went ahead and made the template because I had already accidentally hit the "save page" button. I figured, why not just finish the template, if only so I could learn how to make templates. Trust me, I had wanted to wait for a consensus, but when you're sitting at a desk for 10 hours with nothing to do, you tend to just go forth with these types of things. :P But, yeah, I do apologize for jumping the gun here. In either case, I do believe there needs to be some tweaking with the armor template if only for the sake of differentiating between powered armor and conventional body armor. (Or perhaps they could be the same template?) What do you guys think need to be added or taken out of the template? Another thing to consider is that conventional body armor could very well fit into an Equipment Infobox, but would that work the same for powered armor? A suit of battle armor (such as Spacetrooper armor or Space Marine armor, etc.) doesn't seem to really fit well into the category of equipment, nor does it fit too well in weapons. By the way, does that Equipment Template still need making? I could go ahead and make one if no one objects. --Balsa 00:48, 9 July 2008 (UTC) **I just copy-paste the last line of asterisks and add one more. :P When I said, "stop putting up the template in articles," (not literally, just paraphrasing for the sake of my own benefit :P) I was saying that as a preventive measure, not a "taking action" measure. Making the template and a "template-article" is fine by itself - try showing its overall effectiveness when it's plugged to a talk page - I was just referring to widespread use. I didn't look at Jag's article's history, and that part was meant more for the general audience than just you. Keep powered and conventional armor in the same category. If it's meant for wartime use, then conventional armor can be placed in armor. If for other uses, then it can be placed in equipment, if that's what'll fly better. We'll cross that bridge when we get to it. --Cadden Blackthorne 06:11, 9 July 2008 (UTC) ***Ah, copy and paste. What a good, yet often overlooked resource. :P The idea would work, but I'm simply wondering, what armor would you be wearing that wouldn't be used in combat? Radiation suits? Hazmat suits? Yeah, that would fit better in equipment. Okay, so your proposal sounds fine. Now, does this template include enough, uh, bullet points in it? Is it missing some important ones? etc. --Balsa 07:28, 9 July 2008 (UTC) ****You could probably shoehorn in hazmat or radiation suits into armor, but they would fit better in equipment. Rule of thumb, as I see it, unless it protects against some kind physical damage (in addition to whatever else it protects people from), it should go into equipment. Everything else would be armor. And, if you want to get started working on an equipment template, you have my blessing. I certainly won't have the time to make one until much later. --Halomek 20:14, 9 July 2008 (UTC)